Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

[Jennifer]

Back on topic:

Looks like we finally have a future president that will make Jimmy Carter look competant!

Now that the media has turned on McCain, as I knew they would, and he is losing support left and right out there, and Obama is winning everything in site (11 out of 11 of the last state primaries) it appears Republicans have no hope of getting the White House, as I knew we would NOT with McCain leading the way.

[balungaloaf]

McCains gonna win.  i hope to hear you cry after he does.  :-D

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3412540.ece

[Jennifer]

@balungaloaf:

McCains gonna win.  i hope to hear you cry after he does.  :-D

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3412540.ece

I highly doubt he will.  The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine and all the rest will, and are, turning on him to get their real man into office.

Americans no longer elect the president.  The Media does.  Obama is their man, McCain is their worst case scenario, instead of a conservative, they get a liberal in conservative clothing.

[Guest]

@Cmdr:

Back on topic:

Looks like we finally have a future president that will make Jimmy Carter look competant!

Now that the media has turned on McCain,

To finish your quote the way it should ahve been posted…

“Now that the New York Times has turned on McCain, Conservatives are lining up to back him.”

The only thing more “evil” to a Conservative than Hillary Clinton is the New York Times :-P
The old grey lady just made McCain and Conservatives “the enemy of our enemy is my friend”

[Jennifer]

While I agree that the enemy of my enemy is USUALLY my friend (if only for a while) I don’t consider McCain the friend of republicans and will not support him.

The New York Times is just the most audible opposition to McCain at this time.  It will get worse and the cacophony of media bashing will degrade into more and more mudslinging as they do Obama’s dirty work for him.

This is what you get when you allow the Media to chose YOUR presidential nominee.  Honestly, there’s really no point in voting anymore, the media choses who is president and who is not now.  The Media will elect Obama, he’s their golden child.  Hillary is out.  The media’s cost her the last 11 primaries so they could get their man, Obama, the democrat nomination.  Just like the media slandered and dragged Romney and other somewhat conservative candidates through the mud to get their man McCain the republican nomination, as a security net against conservatives actually getting the presidency - just in case they failed in electing their man.

[Guest]

Perhaps it is the time to ask…
What game is the NYT playing?

They ENDORSE McCain, and they do so AFTER they sit on this alleged story in December.
Then they come out with this week story in February, and the Conservatives (who here to fore had been in opposition to McCain) start backing him in earnest… if the the NY Times is against him, he can’t be all bad!)

Boortz, Hannity, et.al. have all made Pro McCain statements since this story “broke”, and callers have been predominantly “I did not like McCain, but the New York Times has gone to far and I am going to back McCain to put it to the NY Times…”

[Pervavita]

i think it’s to help Clinton Inc, not Obahma.
it puts McCain in the spot light in a bad way.
it gets the negative light of Mrs Clinton (the she is lossing a lot of states), and it also gets Obahma out of the good light (winning a lot of states).
all around it’s a win for Clinton inc, the true indorcement of NYT.

[Jennifer]

As I said.  The NYT et el have selected McCain FOR us, rammed him down our throats, and now have all the evidence they need to cripple him in the general election.  Why in the WORLD did you think they would endorse him?  They know he’s not a real consevative and they know where all his baggage is (shoot, the guy’s been in office since the dinosaurs roamed the earth, they had plenty of time to gather it.)

Now it’s time to let things start to leak out in a trickle.  They figure they can crush him and get their man, Obama, elected and, if for some reason the radical free thinkers of this nation (AKA, red blooded Americans who just happen to want more conservativism then liberalism) get the Republican back into the White House, they’re still covered since McCain’s a media slut and a very liberal Republican.

[balungaloaf]

“all the evidence they need”…?

you mean no evidence.

[Jennifer]

@balungaloaf:

“all the evidence they need”…?

you mean no evidence.

Generally when the media goes after a Republican they don’t ever have evidence.  Since when has the media needed it?  Only republicans need evidence when going after a Democrat and even when it takes 11 tractor trailers to haul it all in, the Democrat still gets off.

[Guest]

Actually Jen, the NYT ALREADY endorsed McCain, in early January.

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

Actually Jen, the NYT ALREADY endorsed McCain, in early January.

Darlin, I’m not disputing that the NYT endorsed McCain early last year.  (Dunno about this year, I think it was 2007, not 2008 - could be wrong.)

What I’m arguing is that the NYT and their compatriots fought to make McCain the Republican nominee because they had the dirt on him already researched and assembled from decades of his history and because he does not poll well with the grass roots Conservatives (with the blue bloods he does really well, however.)

This is their consolation prize.  If, by some miracle, Obama loses in November, they at least get the most liberal republican who ran AND a man they know will cave on conservative principles to court their favor later.

Now, maybe he WILL win, and maybe we’ll see a miracle and he’ll return to his conservative roots from the 80’s.  But I doubt it.  It’s like trying to run your bomber of 4 AA Guns to bomb an enemy capitol.  Sure, you COULD survive, but the odds are not in your favor. (about 48/52 actually, which is far better then I would give the McCain scenario.)

Oh, and yes, I am almost certain that Hillary is out.  That’s why I voted Obama in the Illinois primary. (I had to vote a straight democrat ticket because some upstart was running against my Congresswoman Bean and I had to fight to keep her in power.  She’s a good friend of the family…even if she is a Democrat.)

Anyway, the rationale was Anyone But Hillary. :)  Looks like I succeeded there at least.

[Guest]

In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…

I think it pretty safe to say just about EVERYONE missed it. :P

(That was an attempt at humor.)

[Guerrilla Guy]

@Cmdr:

@ncscswitch:

In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…

I think it pretty safe to say just about EVERYONE missed it. :P

(That was an attempt at humor.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nader

GG

[Imperious Leader]

Nader?  what’s that?  must be a typo. Radar was already invented long ago.

That guy is about as remote as Ron Paul or whoever is running on the communist ticket this year.

[Guerrilla Guy]

Actually he has less chance then Paul (8% Nationally)… And whoever is running on the Communist Ticket probably has more Kalashnikov’s voting for him then Humans…

GG

[Jennifer]

I believe Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a Communist.  Most Communists have moved into the Democrat party.  Not that being Communist is a bad thing.  You want all resources to be distributed fairly to all citizens, you want the government to ensure equitability.  These are noble goals.  Unfortunately, humans are involved and that totally screws up the system, which is why liberalism (which is very close to socialism, or what most Americans think of when they think of communism - aka USSR, China, Cuba, etc).

Honestly, I don’t know where I really fall.  I think corporations should be the only governments.  That way you can live anywhere in the world you want and be in any government you want.  No borders.  No armies.  You don’t like your company, you resign from that government and join a competing government.

And, to be quite frank, I think society is heading that way.  Over many centuries we have moved from absolute authority resting in one man, one government to authority in just one government, to authority in many governments and many men.  It would only take a few nudges to move us into infinite numbers of governments (aka corporations) with people changing “citizenship” (aka employment) at any time.  And people would run these micro-governments because they would purchase shares in those governments.  Unlike the USA where every “shareholder” only gets one vote and it doesn’t really count for anything (electoral college, judges, etc can all over rule the popular vote) now you can invest in a lot of nations, have dual citizenship in many and even vote as many times as you have shares.

Dunno, maybe that makes me a Super Capitalist?

[Guest]

If Nader is the ONLY third party candidate, he will hurt Hitlery in the General Election.  If Paul also runs as a Libertarian then the Republicans are net negative votes, and the Democrats almost certainly win the White House in 2008.

[Imperious Leader]

I don’t think Vader will hurt Celery Clipping, but i do think Huckleberry Hound should just give up because mathematically he has no chance and is only running for first dibs in 2012.